Home

A Question for Tony - It's PMQ tomorrow after all.

Posted January 18th, 2006 by ringverse
in

Dear Tony,

On the 17th January 2006 in response to a Freedom of Information request by al-Jazeera for the disclosure of the so called al-Jazeera memo, your Official Spokesman stated:

...what we can confirm is that the memo does not refer to bombing the Al Jazeera station in Qatar, despite the various allegations."

"I'm not aware of any suggestion of bombing any Al Jazeera station."

Yet, on the 22nd December 2005 the Cabinet office, refusing an earlier FOIA request for 'any memos or notes on Bush and Blair's discussions on bombing al-Jazeera' gave a completely different answer:

Thank you for your email of 24 November in which you request a copy of any memos or motes that record President Bush's discussions with the Prime Minister about the bombing of the al-Jazeera television station in Qatar. Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I can confirm that the cabinet Office holds information which is relevant to your request.

We cannot conceive of what possible information the cabinet office could hold that is relevant to a request for "any memos or notes that record President Bush's discussions with the Prime Minister about the bombing of the al-Jazeera television station in Qatar" - if no such discussion took place, or there was no record of any such discussion.

Both cannot be true, so which is it? Is the Cabinet Office lost in a world of fantasy, or is your Official Spokesman lying through his hind teeth on your behalf?

Yours Truly,
Blairwatch

I've another:

On January 18th, 2006 edjog says:

I've another:

Mr Blair,

how do you expect anyone to take your proposals in the "Respect Action Plan" seriously, namely those which relate to the need to punish the guilty even at the expense of the innocent, when your Government presided over the introduction of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism & Conspiracy) Act 1998 which specifically precludes those acting on behalf of the Crown from being held criminally liable for Conspiracy under this Act, but also removes the provisions of the prior Criminal Law Act 1977, relating to Conspiracy.

Insn't it utter hypocrisy to suggest the danger that a Crown agent or member of HM Govt. might be able to get away with heinous crimes is one which me must accept whilst the danger that a person might get away with vandalism isn't?

In fact Mr Blair, isn't it the case that were it not for subsection 14 of section 5 of this Act, you yourself would be liable to prosecution for a Criminal Conspiracy to Torture?

It's a question i've asked my MP to put to the unspeakable man himself and i urge you all to do the same. Details here.

War Against Conservativism
Let us see then if we cannot in fact eff the ineffable ~ Douglas Adams RIP
Disreputable Lazy Aliens

"I can confirm that the

On January 18th, 2006 sas (not verified) says:

"I can confirm that the cabinet Office holds information which is relevant to your request."

<sarcasm>
The information being that we do not hold any information on what you requested.
</sarcasm>

"I can confirm that the

On January 18th, 2006 Anonymous (not verified) says:

"I can confirm that the cabinet Office holds information which is relevant to your request."

That just says to me that the Cabinet Office holds the memo referred to. It doesn't say anything about its contents.

any memos or notes that

On January 18th, 2006 ringverse says:
any memos or notes that record President Bush's discussions with the Prime Minister about the bombing of the al-Jazeera television station in Qatar.

If there was no such discussion, or there is no record of any such discussion, how can the cabinet office hold documents relevant to that discussion...?

More interestingly, why did the Cabinet office volunteer this information? They could have just refused under the section 27 exemption, like the Bliar's Official Spokesman didn't need to deny it yesterday, he could have simply declined to comment claiming the memo was sub judice, as they did last time...

"If there was no such

On January 18th, 2006 Anonymous (not verified) says:

"If there was no such discussion, or there is no record of any such discussion, how can the cabinet office hold documents relevant to that discussion...?"

Easy, they have the minutes of the meeting (No-one has disputed that there was a meeting, and I seem to remember that the date and location of the meeting was published at the time this all kicked off), and there is no mention of al-Jazeera in them. So they hold documents relevant to the FIOA request. But they haven't given any indication of whats in them. What was the full text of the FOIA request?

...but they replied to the

On January 18th, 2006 ringverse says:

...but they replied to the FOIA request saying that they had documents relevant to discussions between Bush and Blair about the bombing of al-Jazeera, they didn't say they had information relevant to the meeting where the discussion was alleged to have taken place. They are the ones being specific in their reply...

I will try and get hold of the full FOIA request.